“The US Department of Agriculture reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while given no anesthesia for relief. ‘“1,395 primates; 5,996 rabbits; 33,652 guinea pigs; 48,015 hamsters.” (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?) These numbers are outrageous and these animals should not be treated in this manner. People who are using animals for testing and saying that they are using them for “scientific advances” are right in the fact that animal testing has helped us advance in medical science but are wrong in the treatment of animals; it’s inhumane and cruel. And although animal testing can help us advance in the medical field, it is cruel and inhumane because the animals that are being tested
…show more content…
Rabbits are one of the animals that are treated the worst and, most commonly come to people’s minds when you think of animal testing. “Rabbits are “incapitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.” Products such as cosmetics, shampoos etc.” (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?) Think about that next time you’re in the shower or getting …show more content…
It’s better to use human cells in a Petri dish. (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?) That way no animals or humans are harmed, and even though animal testing may seem like a good idea to avoid human testing it can be dangerous. For example, “The 1950s sleeping pill Thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?) and “Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the heart of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.” (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?), making animal testing not 100% accurate. This can also be reversed, just because a drug fails an animal test doesn’t mean it won’t be helpful to humans, such as Aspirin, which is “…dangerous to some animals but is extremely helpful to humans.” (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial
Rabbits are one of the animals that are treated the worst and, most commonly come to people’s minds when you think of animal testing. “Rabbits are “incapitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.” Products such as cosmetics, shampoos etc.” (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?) Think about that next time you’re in the shower or getting …show more content…
It’s better to use human cells in a Petri dish. (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?) That way no animals or humans are harmed, and even though animal testing may seem like a good idea to avoid human testing it can be dangerous. For example, “The 1950s sleeping pill Thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?) and “Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the heart of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.” (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?), making animal testing not 100% accurate. This can also be reversed, just because a drug fails an animal test doesn’t mean it won’t be helpful to humans, such as Aspirin, which is “…dangerous to some animals but is extremely helpful to humans.” (Should Animals Be used for Scientific or Commercial